This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Problem reading corefiles on ARM

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
Cc: gcc at sources dot redhat dot com, sposelenov at emcraft dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:51:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Problem reading corefiles on ARM
References: <4899C0FE.4010008@emcraft.com> <20080806152736.GA31492@caradoc.them.org> <200808061542.m76FgmUv017348@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>

On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 05:42:48PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> GCC should really not do this.  People are almost guaranteed to want
> to be able to see a backtrace from abort(3).

Yes, it's come up for discussion several times... I don't like the
current behavior either.  The current behavior was added many years
ago for an unspecified application :-(

  /* Decide if the current function is volatile.  Such functions
     never return, and many memory cycles can be saved by not storing
     register values that will never be needed again.  This optimization
     was added to speed up context switching in a kernel application.  */

IMO that shouldn't be written in C, then...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

References:
- Problem reading corefiles on ARM
  - From: Sergei Poselenov
- Re: Problem reading corefiles on ARM
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: Problem reading corefiles on ARM
  - From: Mark Kettenis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]